OK guys, you've had enough to say in the wrong forum and threads... and I know its been talked about before, but there's new folks, new opinions and more time in service for the skyhood, and more MARD's in service/development...

So lets have it, what do you think?? (I'll duck now...)

JW

PS - yes I know... always some option left off Polls... wish the options were editable... sorry.

Here's my hang up with the MARD system- the second you change your EPs because you have one, you have taken it from a back up device to a primary device.

If you're willing to chop at 300ft because you have a Skyhook, you're counting on the Skyhook to work or you die.

If you're willing to do anything you wouldn't do without one, you have defeated the purpose. Oh the irony, that Bill Booths product could be the one to prove his theory that for every safety advancement you give jumper, they'll find a way to negate the additional level of safety.

What are MARDS good for? They do seem to limit the amount of 'stuff' that can happen between a cutaway and RSl activated reserve deployment. Quicker deployment means less time for spinning and inducing line twists.

It's also hard to argue with the idea of more altitude. If a MARD can get you under a reserve at 1200ft, while an RSl would have put under canopy at 1000ft, that extra altitude can be used to find and make a suitable landing area.

In the end, it's a narrow margin of improvement over an RSL. Anything a MARD can do, an RSL can do with an extra 200ft, and a human can do with an extra 400ft. While it's hard to argue with an improvement of any kind, I think the MARDs have fallen into a trap where people seem to think they're more than just back up devices, and have it in their mind that they really can cutaway from 300ft if they have to, and that's not really the case.

There was another feeling I was getting from the previous thread that I wanted to address, but the discussion was shut down there, so I'll throw it in here.

At least one person seemed to be implying that MARD's/Skyhooks are so great that NOT having them on student gear was negligence. And from that, you could imply that the student operations are guilty of killing their students when those students perform low cutaways.

So let's be clear on this. Just because a drop zone doesn't have the latest and greatest parachute inventions does not mean that they are being negligent with the lives of their students. They train the students on how to respond with the gear that they have now, to save their lives in emergencies. The students need to follow those instructions, and not activate cut-aways below 1,000 feet.

It costs money to retrofit a bunch of student gear, and not all drop zones have the dough to go redesigning their gear every time something new comes out. You get to jump what's available now, not what you might like to have in a world where everyone has more money than they need. If you're not comfortable with that, don't jump.

Student gear, and even experienced gear, is often a bunch of compromises. What might solve one problem, often has a downside and can create other problems. How someone chooses to address those compromises and configure their gear is a personal choice. They shouldn't be called negligent just because their decision process is different from yours.

How about an automobile analogy? Do you go out and buy a new high-end car every year in order to have the latest and greatest safety gimmicks that the manufacturers dream up? What, you can't afford that? Well, why not retrofit your existing car? That's too expensive too? Does it mean that you are negligent because you own an older or cheaper car that doesn't have side airbags? Should you be sued if you loan your car to a friend and they run a stop sign and die in a side-impact collision because you chose not to buy a car with side airbags? Is everyone who doesn't drive a Cadillac Escalade an unsafe motorist who is just asking for trouble?

Here's my hang up with the MARD system- the second you change your EPs because you have one, you have taken it from a back up device to a primary device.

Not necessarily, in all cases. Maybe it just slightly lowers the deck a jumper uses, down in the basement, between cutting away and just "getting more nylon out" - dumping a reserve into a main has its own perils, as we all know. So in that regard, it's really just about expanding available options a bit.

There was another feeling I was getting from the previous thread that I wanted to address, but the discussion was shut down there, so I'll throw it in here.

At least one person seemed to be implying that MARD's/Skyhooks are so great that NOT having them on student gear was negligence. And from that, you could imply that the student operations are guilty of killing their students when those students perform low cutaways.

So let's be clear on this. Just because a drop zone doesn't have the latest and greatest parachute inventions does not mean that they are being negligent with the lives of their students. They train the students on how to respond with the gear that they have now, to save their lives in emergencies. The students need to follow those instructions, and not activate cut-aways below 1,000 feet.

It costs money to retrofit a bunch of student gear, and not all drop zones have the dough to go redesigning their gear every time something new comes out. You get to jump what's available now, not what you might like to have in a world where everyone has more money than they need. If you're not comfortable with that, don't jump.

Student gear, and even experienced gear, is often a bunch of compromises. What might solve one problem, often has a downside and can create other problems. How someone chooses to address those compromises and configure their gear is a personal choice. They shouldn't be called negligent just because their decision process is different from yours.

How about an automobile analogy? Do you go out and buy a new high-end car every year in order to have the latest and greatest safety gimmicks that the manufacturers dream up? What, you can't afford that? Well, why not retrofit your existing car? That's too expensive too? Does it mean that you are negligent because you own an older or cheaper car that doesn't have side airbags? Should you be sued if you loan your car to a friend and they run a stop sign and die in a side-impact collision because you chose not to buy a car with side airbags? Is everyone who doesn't drive a Cadillac Escalade an unsafe motorist who is just asking for trouble?

On the other hand, negligence law suits have been won when students were injured/killed because the DZ was using out-dated gear that was not up to the accepted industry standard...

At this point a DZ that took this same stand as to why they did not use AAD's on student gear (change of emergency procedures, possible double deployments, cost, maintanence, added education/complexity for the rigger), would be burned by the industry.

(and I have heard those arguments concerning AAD's in the past)

So, by pattern, I guess they may be required on student gear in another 10 years.

What other MARDs are out there and available on sport gear besides the skyhook? I am aware some version of the RAX system was recently put on some gear in Europe, but I think that was military only.

What is the proportion of jumps in which the Skyhook does not work as designed (using the cutaway main as a pilot chute) and simply works as an RSL? I've seen anecdotal reports that put this number as high as 10%, I don't know if that is accurate but it seems awfully high to me.

What other MARDs are out there and available on sport gear besides the skyhook?

Available - not sure. In development - Strong and Jerry B are working on designs. Not sure if they are on the market yet, but wanted to leave the option open as I just dunno...

JW

I believe the RAX is Jerry's design (actually an Infinity design) that is freely available to any rig manufacturer that wants it (no patent).

I understand that Eric Fradet has a system but he intends it for military installation only? maybe?

I do not know much at all about the Strong MARD in development.

As I tend not to be an early adopterd I would want to see all of these things on the market for a while before I would be willing to adopt any of them...let other people be the beta testers and find out where the flaws and limitations are...

OK, a search has revealed RiggerRob's post on the Strong MARD from PIA 2011--apparently it is intended for tandems. I admit that I don't fully understand all of this, it is all so much simpler with a diagram.:

The reserve also includes a new type of MARD (Main Assisted Reserve Deployment). The "Air Anchor" RSL has a ring on the bottom that slides along the reserve bridle. A 1-ring release system - temporarily - attaches the RSL to the bridle and is held closed by a piece of black flex cable. If the RSL wins the race, it pulls against a (covered) bag-stop-ring and lifts the free-bag. If the pilot-chute wins the race, the ring (on the bottom of the RSL) slides away from the steel cable and the RSL dis-connects, similar to Socerer and Skyhook. SEI showed video Air Anchor drop tests. The reserve bridle configuration is not "frozen" so I suggested sewing on a stiffened (similar to a steering toggle) extra piece of webbing - or at a bare minimum sewing some contrasting thread to remind field riggers where to do the needle fold for the staging loop. SEI also said that all of their older canopies are compatible with the new system, to ease conversion costs for DZs that already operate Dual Hawks. They have tested SET 400 and SET 366 - as reserves - in various military rigs and will offer them as reserves in the new system.

What other MARDs are out there and available on sport gear besides the skyhook?

Available - not sure. In development - Strong and Jerry B are working on designs. Not sure if they are on the market yet, but wanted to leave the option open as I just dunno...

JW

I believe the RAX is Jerry's design (actually an Infinity design) that is freely available to any rig manufacturer that wants it (no patent).

I understand that Eric Fradet has a system but he intends it for military installation only? maybe?

I do not know much at all about the Strong MARD in development.

As I tend not to be an early adopterd I would want to see all of these things on the market for a while before I would be willing to adopt any of them...let other people be the beta testers and find out where the flaws and limitations are...

We use a simple, yet highly effective main assisted reserve deployment (MARD) system called the Air Anchor. The Air Anchor is part of the RSL so there is no special or extra equipment needed! During a cutaway the Air Anchor activates when the main canopy has more drag than the departing reserve pilot chute reducing time and altitude lost by as much as 50%. With no complicated rigging required the Air Anchor is simply the best safety system available!

So, should the cutaway decision altitude change? NIMO A RSL or MARD will help with the cutaway not reserve pull/delayed reserve pull incidents which aren't uncommon, even with experienced jumpers. A MARD will help with the potential fatality that waited too long to cutaway. Would/could I change my cutaway versus more nylon decision based on a MARD? No. First altitude is likely changing fast enough that no MARD/MARD decision points are likely passed quickly. In addition cutaway or not decision point should be higher than the MAX time done under TSO testing. TSO testing was probably best case. So you need to cutaway higher than 300' to ensure rig functions within testing limits. RSL might get pack open sooner. MARD may get you more flight time but relying on it to get it open sooner and changing decision altitudes is at best a paper exercise. What it MAY do is save the folks that have already passed all the decision altitudes and still cutaway. Or forced to by low incident/change in main.

why didn't you provide an option "I don't use MARD" as an possible answer to this question?

Edit: and you can place your opinion about my opinion whereever you want.

Oversite (honest... as mentioned in my edited original post... when I realised it, it would not let me edit the poll options.)

Just curious if your opinion was one of a young student or of a seasoned verteran of the belly-wart vintage, or otherwise. Just wanting to understand the backgrounds of the people and their opinion. As to your, I respect it and wish you well.

Current TSO Limits Canopies with max weight up to 250. For Breakaway. 5 secs or 300 ft. Measured from pack opening. For over 250 it goes up 0.01s and 1ft per pound.

4.3.6 Functional Test (Normal Pack All Types): For all 4.3.6 tests the maximum allowable opening time for parachute canopies with a maximum operating weight of 250 lb (113.4 kg) or less, is 3 s from the moment of pack opening.